"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:In my understanding you are being mislead by the posts of Nana and Dmytro and the quotations of late dubious litterature they contain.

Well, of the five sources Ñāṇa cited earlier, one was a dictionary, one was from the abhidhammapiṭaka, and three were from the Saṃyutta Nikāya. Do you consider the Saṃyutta Nikāya late and dubious?

(I actually somewhat disagree with how the Satipaṭṭhānavibhaṅga defines sampajāna in this context, preferring to use other Saṃyutta Nikāya passages such as:

Gelañña Sutta wrote:And how, O monks, is a monk clearly comprehending? He applies clear comprehension in going forward and going back; in looking straight on and in looking elsewhere; in bending and in stretching (his limbs); in wearing the robes and carrying the alms bowl; in eating, drinking, chewing and savoring; in obeying the calls of nature; in walking, standing sitting, falling asleep, waking, speaking and being silent — in all that he applies clear comprehension. So, monks, is a monk clearly comprehending.

In any event, it seems to me that the Saṃyutta altogether disagrees with your strenuous attempts at ossifying a bifurcation of these aspects of sati.)

Dukkhanirodha wrote:Whichever way you understand sati intellectually I suggest you set it aside and you focus only on the practice of anapanassati intensively for a long time. Then all your doubts will fade away, and that's the only way.

And how long have I been practicing ānāpānasati? Encompassing my mind with your mind, are you?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

beeblebrox wrote:Exactly, Tiltbillings... there is nothing about the "present moment." It wasn't framed it in that way.

You might be reading more into "present moment" than is intended.

Probably not... here are some quotations:

SN 22.95

Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form? [And so on for other aggregates... including the perception of past, future, and present.]

SN 22.79

"Thus an instructed disciple of the noble ones reflects in this way: 'I am now being chewed up by form. But in the past I was also chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form. And if I delight in future form, then in the future I will be chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past form, does not delight in future form, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present form. [and so on for other aggregates...]

SN 22.48

The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five clinging-aggregates?

"Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form clinging-aggregate." [And so on for other aggregates...]

And this is a nice one:

Snp 4.10 - Purabheda Sutta

"Seeing how, behaving how, is one said to be at peace?

Gotama, tell me about — when asked about — the ultimate person."

The Buddha:

"Free from craving before the break-up [of the body], independent of before & the end, not classified in between,no yearning is his.

Not in hopes of material gain does he take on the training; when without material gain he isn't upset.

Unobstructed by craving, he doesn't through craving hunger for flavors.

Equanimous — always — mindful, he doesn't conceive himself as equal, superior, inferior, in the world. No swellings of pride are his.

Whose dependencies don't exist when, on knowing the Dhamma, he's in- dependent;in whom no craving is found for becoming or not-: he is said to be at peace, un-intent on sensual pleasures, with nothing at all to tie him down: one who's crossed over attachment.

He has no children cattle, fields, land. In him you can't pin down what's embraced or rejected. He has no yearning for that which people run-of-the-mill or priests & contemplatives might blame — which is why he is unperturbed with regard to their words.

His greed gone, not miserly, the sage doesn't speak of himself as among those who are higher, equal, or lower. He, conjuring-free, doesn't submit to conjuring, to the cycling of time.

For whom nothing in the world is his own, who doesn't grieve over what is not, who doesn't enter into doctrines phenomena: he is said to be at peace."

It's more to do with the way Dukkhanirodha seems to think it means... as something that excludes remembrance. It has nothing to do with the way you or the vipassana masters view it. (I'll be without computer for a while.)

I am just dropping the topic as I am about to get off the connected world.

I had the following thought regarding the reason why people want to interpret sati as 'remembrance':

At the initial stage of practice, the mind is constantly loosing the object and one has to remember as often as possible to refocus on the object. And the people who are not undertaking the gradual path (see here) properly can hardly move to any higher stage. So for those people, that is the only experience of meditation they have and since they interpret the instructions of the Buddha in reference to their own experience, they tend to mistake the effort to bring back the mind to the object for meaning sati.

But this is not even sati. It is just the prerequisite stage to be completed before being able to be endowed with sati. If they cleanded up their daily life from all the activities that stir up their agitation, as for example participating actively to this forum, if they practiced more seriously for longer perdiods of time and if they got their mind clean enough, they could experience the next stage. Of course, this is not easy and spending time here is not helping.

There comes a time when the mind notices that the object was lost within a second. Then, within a fraction of second. And eventually, the mind remains fixed on the object, so there is no need to 'remember' to refocus on it. Further there comes a stage where one is so much focused on the object, on the arising and passing of phenomena within the object, that the object becomes the only existing thing in the world, one forgets about meditation, forgets about being a human being, one forgets about anything that was heard or said before, only focused on the present phenomena within the object. This is what I take to mean absorption in the object. And no one can say that there is no more sati in this case. Sati is more present than ever.

So this explains why interpreting sati as 'remembrance' is not consistant with levels of practice higher than the initial stage, and this is why meditation teachers such as Goenka or Pa Auk interpret sati as "mindfulness" and not as 'remembrance' in the context of the practice. And those who do not practice properly are highly liable to misinterpret the instructions given in the suttas. If on top of that they try to spread their wrong views, they are misrepresenting the Buddha and his teaching, they harm themselves and all those who, having read them, take up their wrong views.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:There comes a time when the mind notices that the object was lost within a second. Then, within a fraction of second. And eventually, the mind remains fixed on the object, so there is no need to 'remember' to refocus on it.

One needs to remember to keep the mind fixed on subject of meditation and remember to bring it back when the mind wanders off. When the mind wondered off, it forgot what it should have remembered. So sati includes remembrance.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."